Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Semantics? You labeled them as assault rifles. Last I recall assault weapons are, by and large law-wise, semiautomatic rifles with cosmetic similarities to assault rifles. So a big difference between SR's and AR's but not so much between SR's and AW's. Just as, again, the FAWB does not have to be an exact copy of what it was. It can be improved.

The terms are made up, so it is semantics to debate their relative value. An automatic AR15 is a machinegun, a semiautomatic AR15 is a rifle.

Its not about changing the characteristics of the semiautomatic rifles in question. Its about making it harder for people to get their hands on them. Including the insane ones. The federal assault weapons ban is as much a purely political move as is raising taxes or lowering them. As in, some politicians think its the right thing to do. Nor can the legislation not be improved. Just as the previous results of it have been found to be inconclusive.

The results were inconclusive because the guns were never a large portion of crimes before the 94 ban, so measuring any rising or lowering of their usage rate was not viable.

But, let me repost the images again, and you can tell me which is more dangerous, because you didn't answer that I saw.


Enlighten me with your knowledge of the assault weapon category and explain why one is unfit for the public, but the other is perfectly acceptable.

Again, semiautomatic rifles that might have made Columbine even worse were not as available to the shooters because of the ban. Just as without the guard it could have been worse. However, it wasn't until two were already dead and ten were already wounded that the guard even had a chance to intervene.

Semiautomatic rifles were readily available (hint: the Hipoint carbine is a semiauto rifle), the common denominator of their weapons was that they were CHEAP. That's why the "Assault weapon" they had (Tec 9) jammed, because it's a piece of shit. (I'm going by the wiki saying they had a Tec9 though, I could have sworn they had a AB10/DC9)

The batman shooter was a jobless medical student or something of the sort, who spent a few thousand dollars getting guns. His Bushmaster jammed due to the magazine he had.

It doesn't require a fundamental knowledge of guns to tell that they are dangerous. Nor, again, can the legislation not be updated and improved. Again, again, its not difficult to figure out.

So when one ban fails, keep banning until you run out of things to ban?

Fewer bullets? Harder to kill more people. Just as every break in fire is another opportunity for more people to get away and an extra opportunity for the weapon to malfunction. Minutes, and even seconds, can count in mass shootings. Not exactly hard to see.

And that has nothing to do with the assault weapon category of firearms. If you want to debate the merit of a magazine capacity law, then go there, but that's a different issue rolled into the same over-arching laws. (Same way the original AWB was a part of the background check system.)

A desk may not stop a bullet but a door with desks shoved in front of it has a better chance. Especially if you don't stand behind the door.

As I said, one of the issues is just how schools are constructed. My middle school (well, 20 years ago...) didn't actually have doors on the inside class rooms. I suggested in the other thread a comparison to cockpit safeties of doors that lock and such, though again I'm not clear on exactly how the current shooter bypassed the apparent security system of the school in CT.

More about the gun show loophole

If you'd read my posts on the subject, you'd see I outlined the information more accurately than your link does anyway, if you disagree with me in some specific point, I'll be happy to explain.

Private sales of firearms are not currently regulated in most jurisdictions. While a gun show might serve as a means to gather more buyers/sellers into a common area, it is not a situation unique or endemic to the gunshows. Most shows are dominated by several large dealers and a bunch of small dealers (all licensed) with the rest being non-gun dealers (holsters, bags, ammo, whatever). There are smaller gatherings that might entail more horsetrading among collectors and such, they are generally done in smaller venues such as veterans organizations and such. Rural areas probably have more of the latter kind, but are also more commonly smaller communities where you know who you're buying/selling with.

It's like the magazine ban I mentioned earlier. If you feel that the magazines are too large, then stand up for a magazine limit, it has nothing to do with rifles. Similarly, if you feel that unrestricted private sales are an issue, then that is the argument and doesn't involve gunshows.

I feel it ties back to an earlier conversation about safe storage. It's best tied back to a liability issue, making folks more responsible who they sell to by making them liable for what happens after they've sold it, but not sure that's a workable solution regardless.

---------- Post added 2012-12-27 at 03:53 PM ----------

Seems nonsensical to me. When we have a good that carries a significant degree of lethal capacity we regulate it to mitigate that. Not sure why guns aren't the same.

Guns are quite regulated, on a federal, state and in some cases county basis. Like CT's assault weapon ban, some states continued the ban when the federal one lapsed. Other states are more restricted, others are less restricted. In none of them is there no regulation.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Enlighten me with your knowledge of the assault weapon category and explain why one is unfit for the public, but the other is perfectly acceptable.

According to the proposed assault weapon ban, neither one is fit for civilians because they're both assault rifles.

[SirRobin]

The terms are made up, so it is semantics to debate their relative value. An automatic AR15 is a machinegun, a semiautomatic AR15 is a rifle.

So you are saying an assault rifle is a made up term? So we should just call all firearms "boom sticks" instead?

The results were inconclusive because the guns were never a large portion of crimes before the 94 ban, so measuring any rising or lowering of their usage rate was not viable.

But, let me repost the images again, and you can tell me which is more dangerous, because you didn't answer that I saw.
http://www.slickguns.com/product/dpm...-30-rnds-82267
http://www.slickguns.com/product/dpm...-30-rnds-57050
Enlighten me with your knowledge of the assault weapon category and explain why one is unfit for the public, but the other is perfectly acceptable.

And as I've said before, what distinguishes assault weapons from semiautomatic rifles is cosmetic. Just as I have also said before that updating and improving the legislation is an option. Both may be unfit so the other can be added too. Again, and again, the FAWB had flaws. We can update and improve it.

Semiautomatic rifles were readily available (hint: the Hipoint carbine is a semiauto rifle), the common denominator of their weapons was that they were CHEAP. That's why the "Assault weapon" they had (Tec 9) jammed, because it's a piece of shit. (I'm going by the wiki saying they had a Tec9 though, I could have sworn they had a AB10/DC9)

The batman shooter was a jobless medical student or something of the sort, who spent a few thousand dollars getting guns. His Bushmaster jammed due to the magazine he had.

Yet the weapons on the FAWB were not as readily available. Again, its not about making it impossible for wackos to commit mass shootings. Its about making it harder for them to kill as many. Since they are legal gun owners, or legal gun owners weapons, involved? Make it harder to get those weapons. Banning could do that with an updated and improved FAWB. Though further restricting access to them may be all that is really required.

So when one ban fails, keep banning until you run out of things to ban?

Or be smarter when you ban or restrict them.

And that has nothing to do with the assault weapon category of firearms. If you want to debate the merit of a magazine capacity law, then go there, but that's a different issue rolled into the same over-arching laws. (Same way the original AWB was a part of the background check system.)

Why the FAWB is "back on the table," so to speak, is relevant to this thread. As I have shown previously. Ignoring it won't change it.

As I said, one of the issues is just how schools are constructed. My middle school (well, 20 years ago...) didn't actually have doors on the inside class rooms. I suggested in the other thread a comparison to cockpit safeties of doors that lock and such, though again I'm not clear on exactly how the current shooter bypassed the apparent security system of the school in CT.

Though the fact that the shooter was able to bypass the security system again reinforces the relevance of the kinds of weapons he had access to. Or is this where I'm supposed to say that school construction isn't relative to this thread's subject.

If you'd read my posts on the subject, you'd see I outlined the information more accurately than your link does anyway, if you disagree with me in some specific point, I'll be happy to explain.

Private sales of firearms are not currently regulated in most jurisdictions. While a gun show might serve as a means to gather more buyers/sellers into a common area, it is not a situation unique or endemic to the gunshows. Most shows are dominated by several large dealers and a bunch of small dealers (all licensed) with the rest being non-gun dealers (holsters, bags, ammo, whatever). There are smaller gatherings that might entail more horsetrading among collectors and such, they are generally done in smaller venues such as veterans organizations and such. Rural areas probably have more of the latter kind, but are also more commonly smaller communities where you know who you're buying/selling with.

It's like the magazine ban I mentioned earlier. If you feel that the magazines are too large, then stand up for a magazine limit, it has nothing to do with rifles. Similarly, if you feel that unrestricted private sales are an issue, then that is the argument and doesn't involve gunshows.

I feel it ties back to an earlier conversation about safe storage. It's best tied back to a liability issue, making folks more responsible who they sell to by making them liable for what happens after they've sold it, but not sure that's a workable solution regardless.

Someone asked about the gun show loophole so I posted more information about it and included the link.

As far as liability? Here you go. Any "accuracy" issues with that one?

[Svifnymr]

So you are saying an assault rifle is a made up term? So we should just call all firearms "boom sticks" instead?

When discussing the capability of a rifle, it's appearance has no bearing on that capability. Assigning arbitrary terms based on cosmetics just shows ignorance of the objects in question.

And as I've said before, what distinguishes assault weapons from semiautomatic rifles is cosmetic. Just as I have also said before that updating and improving the legislation is an option. Both may be unfit so the other can be added too. Again, and again, the FAWB had flaws. We can update and improve it.

Yet the weapons on the FAWB were not as readily available. Again, its not about making it impossible for wackos to commit mass shootings. Its about making it harder for them to kill as many. Since they are legal gun owners, or legal gun owners weapons, involved? Make it harder to get those weapons. Banning could do that with an updated and improved FAWB. Though further restricting access to them may be all that is really required.

The first gun pictured was widely available during the AWB. The AWB actually popularized the guns and if anything made them more popular. They were readily available to anyone that could pass the background checks and had the money.

Though the fact that the shooter was able to bypass the security system again reinforces the relevance of the kinds of weapons he had access to. Or is this where I'm supposed to say that school construction isn't relative to this thread's subject.

Actually no, I'd just like to know. Originally I'd heard that they let him in because they recognized him and all he had was handguns hidden away. Afterwards it changed to a rifle also, but never saw anything else about the school security system.

Someone asked about the gun show loophole so I posted more information about it and included the link.

The link was actually pretty mixed for information in it, but it was more to the terminology. There is no gun show loophole, so it would help if folks were more accurate in their demands.

As far as liability? Here you go. Any "accuracy" issues with that one?

Actually it vastly misrepresnts the situation.

Bushmaster was being sued, their insurance company told them it'd cost more than their insurance policy covered, so paid them the money and told them to do what they wanted. Bushmaster gave the money to the victims families ($550,000) in an out of court settlement rather than go to court to fight, admitting no wrong doing and paying nothing out of pocket. A lot of folks didn't like that they did it, actually, but their statement was that they'd rather give the money to the families instead of lawyers for HCI.

The gunshop paid out the larger portion of it (though not sure if they actually paid it, 2mil isn't exactly laying around in most gun shops). They lost the case because of (as we've discussed previously) their own ineptitude in securing their inventory. (The gun used was stolen, I forget the details but I think it was an employee.) Their own negligence resulted in a criminal that could otherwise not get a gun, getting a gun, and they were rightfully sued and lost.

---------- Post added 2012-12-27 at 05:35 PM ----------

According to the proposed assault weapon ban, neither one is fit for civilians because they're both assault rifles.

Depends on which version of the law they enact of course. Even feinsteins current wishlist wouldn't affect the choice here;



Same gun, same bullets, same capabilities, one is an assault weapon and one is not.

[The Riddler]

Even feinsteins current wishlist wouldn't affect the choice here;

Well - Feinstein's 'wishlist' is not even an "assault weapon" law. It is an out and out attempt to ban all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns. Proving the point that the real objective of all these radical anti-gun kooks is not "safety". They aren't interested in saving lives, or protecting children, or anything of the sort. They simply seek to ban all private gun ownership. They are creepy on a Stalin-esque level, and the saddest thing of all is the number of useful idiots who agree with them. If they were sheep, they'd be turning on the chipper-shredder and happily throwing themselves in because they would think it is "for the greater good".

[PhaelixWW]

While you are correct that "handguns" are used most frequently in mass shootings. You didn't mention what kinds of handguns were being used. Seran decided to get a little snarky, is that the right word(?), with his reply so I merely returned the favor by pointing out the kinds of handguns that were favored.

I don't need to change the topic. As shown previously, the thread is about gun control. The inconvenience is that focusing on assault weapons versus handguns, obscures the greater divide involving semiautomatics. Nor, if you'll recall, am I claiming that an actual ban is required. Updating and improving the FAWB is an option but more comprehensive reform would be preferable.

And preferable by more people, too. That's why I'm so upset by this talk of a renewed ban. Democratic politicians are spending political capital to try to pass an AWB that, in my mind, would be largely ineffective, while also limiting the rights of a large number of legal and more-or-less responsible gun owners. And they're doing that instead of going after the more legitimate topics. If they put forward a bill that would force background checks for all firearm transactions (dealer or private) as well as make gun locks/safes mandatory for all firearms, and even if they added in a 10-round magazine limit, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat over voting for a useless AWB (though I still think the round-limit should be 20 or 30).

As we've seen, it is the legal gun owners' own behavior that keeps bringing gun control back into the spotlight. I don't need to convince you. Gun owners themselves are doing the convincing.

You keep harping on "legal gun owners" like they're the problem. Once again, I'll state that you're legally allowed to get a gun until and unless you do something that removes that right. To imply that the background check can somehow tell if someone is going to, in the future, snap and go crazy is ridiculous, moving into Minority Report territory. The truth is that 99.99% of gun owners are still legal gun owners because they've done nothing wrong. You keep trying to lump "legal gun owners" together as a whole, then pointing to a very, very small handful of "wackos" as the prime example. This is just stupid. It's a red herring, and you should know better.

This isn't a once in a lifetime sort of event. This isn't even once a generation. Its, almost, at the least an annual event. Well except for this last year of course. Seven mass shootings in 2012? Not a good year. Look at who is committing the shootings or where they are getting their weapons from. Yep, far to often, its legal gun owners.

Sure, just like ~15% of the prisoners in the US who used a firearm in their crime were first-offenders. Once again, this just shows that you're law-abiding until you're not. And since mass killings (which are all this thread and the media seem to focus on) are, by their very nature, acts of insanity, it's even more likely the case, because it's so hard to predict a crazy act of violence before it happens. A background check can objectively look at someone's criminal history, but it can only tell if someone has been committed as a danger to themselves/others, not if they should be committed. It's false logic and misdirection.

People start getting a bit more proactive when the "statistically aberrant" behavior is being committed on children.

And, sadly, that's emotion-driven politics, rather than reason-driven politics. And if being emotionally driven leads people to a result that's less effective rather than using reason to find a result that's more effective...

So "more mass killings from non-semi-automatic firearms" was not actually talking about non-semi-automatic firearms? Considering that assault weapons also tend to be semiautomatics, plus some shotguns may have been semiautomatics, I'm not sure how you would think that that chart supports your initial claim in any way.

You misread it. Twice.

I said that there were more mass killings from non-semi-automatic weapons than from assault weapons. I later amended that statement because I'd earlier counted all shotgun mass killings (19) with revolver mass killings (20) as non-semi-automatic mass killings when the number of shotgun mass killings likely included at least a few semi-automatic shotguns. So I said that the numbers were more or less equal between assault weapon mass killings (35) and revolvers + pump shotgun mass killings (<39).

Which is why I bring up "try policing yourselves or something." As you brought up with the priests, gun control doesn't have to be federally imposed from the "outside." You have gun associations out the wazoo.

The Catholic Church can regulate Catholic priests, because every Catholic priest belongs to, and acknowledges the power of, the Catholic Church. Gun associations cannot regulate gun ownership. The NRA, the single largest gun owners association, has an estimated 4.3 million members. There are ~270 million guns in the US. Even if you estimate an average of 5 guns per gun owner, that's still more than 50 million gun owners. Meaning that the NRA membership is less than 10% of the whole. And that even assumes that every single member would do what the NRA leadership says, which is laughable.

A Gallup poll last year indicated that nearly 50% of households have at least one gun. The only way to regulate this, en masse, is with federal legislation. And federal legislation will never be able to completely effectively regulate it all, either. So stop trying to say that gun owners should be responsible for policing themselves.

Statistical anomalies are, by definition, the exception, not the rule.

Again, these wackos are not buying these guns in back alleys. They buy them at gun shops and gun shows. So not only does the government find out who has guns through registration, you do to. I hear all this stuff about safety classes and awareness. Well then, use that awareness for more than how Obama wants to take your guns away today. Use it for, "you see that guy who picked up the bushmaster last week? Anyone know if he is an association member? Anyone invite him to one of our local ranges? Anyone got his phone?"

Here is a really nice one. "Anyone talk to the new guy yet? He looks wound way to tight. He just bought another glock and a couple of high capacity mags. Should we be worried about this?" There is always a tipping point. Police yourselves so others don't end up feeling forced too.

People get socially refused all the time:

Guy comes into a shop, wanting to buy a gun. Makes a joke about killing his wife. Gun seller says "Yeah, I don't feel comfortable selling this gun to you. No sale."

Another guy comes in, wants to get a gun, then has someone else step up to do the paperwork. Gun seller says "No, sorry, this appears to be a straw purchase. No sale."

Yet another guy walks in, says he wants a gun, doesn't seem to care which one or about the cost. Says he wants it today and is told that there's a mandatory wait, after which he repeatedly tries to get behind the gun counter and is issued a trespass warning. Guy comes back a few days later and is caught trying to get behind the gun counter again, and asks if there's anywhere that he can "rent" a gun. Gun seller calls the police and stalls the guy til the police can arrest him for trespassing, and hopefully get some psychiatric help.

These are real incidents, they happen. And none of them relied on the background check to prevent the sale. But very rarely, someone will be able to legally get a gun and then go do something crazy. It doesn't mean the system doesn't work. It just means that no system is perfect.

Its still a gun control issue, even if they were secured, because they clearly weren't secured enough.

We have no idea how well it was secured. Maybe it was sitting, loaded, on a coffee table. Maybe it was in an unlocked safe. Maybe it was locked in the safe, but he had a copy of the key for a potential home defense situation. Maybe it was locked in a safe, the mother didn't trust her son with the key, but kept it in her purse and he stole it. Maybe it was locked in a safe, she didn't trust him with the key, and hid it where she thought he couldn't find it, but he did.

It's all speculation, and we'll probably never know.

Again, again, its not actually that hard to fool the shrinks, enough, to get released.

If you agree that it's not hard to fool a shrink, then you should agree that it's even harder for some parents (who often times have blinders on where their kids are concerned), let alone a background check, to know in advance that someone is going to commit this kind of crime and should therefore be refused access to a firearm.

A perfectly understandable reaction when legal gun owners and legal guns are the problem.

God, you never seem to get tired of this ridiculous assertion.

A few crazy people are the problem. Millions of legal gun owners are not the problem.

Once again, let me ask you:
Should you limit the rights of all white people for the actions of the KKK?
Should you limit the rights of all African-American and Latino people for the actions of inner-city gang violence?
Should you limit the rights of all Catholics for the actions of a few, perverted priests?

No, you blame the few responsible, not the group as a whole. By repeatedly saying that legal gun owners are the problem, it's like you're racially profiling, but analogous to gun owners.

And despite the more media-focused mass killings, the vast majority of firearm violence is done by illegal gun owners. There are, on average, about 1000 gang-related shooting homicides in a year.

Again and again, the gun control debate is not coming back to the political foreground because a kid accidentally shoots himself. Or a gang member robs a liquor store. Mass shootings also more than make up for their rarity with how much damage they inflict.

No, they don't. Mass killings, despite their individually high body counts, are still a tiny fraction of gun violence. Gun control shouldn't be based on only 1% of gun violence, let alone applied to the 99.99% of non-violent gun owners. Ignoring things like gang violence, which alone is responsible for more than 10% of firearm homicides, when talking about gun control is being nonsensically myopic.

The Columbine guns, thirteen years ago, were traced back to a gun show.

Unfortunately, the three guns purchased at the gun show would probably still have been purchased, even if the background checks had been done, since they were purchased by a friend who was 18 and with no record. It would still have been an illegal transaction, assuming the girl bought them specifically for the two boys, since that would constitute a straw purchase, but those aren't going to be caught by a background check.

The other gun, the 9mm handgun, was purchased illegally by the two boys from a third party.

AR-15 have a large mmo clip larger then 10 bullets and most favored gun to use in mass killings.

If you keep ignoring the facts, then I will keep reporting them.

Assault weapons are not the most favored guns used in mass killings. Assault weapons are used in less than 25% of mass killings and less than 5% of firearm homicides. Alternately, handguns are used in more than 60% of mass killings and more than 70% of firearm homicides.

Repeatedly ignoring these facts does not help your case any.

I'm afraid I'm going to have disagree with you. As I told posters before. Obama called it a military assault rifle. If I look it up that is the defined meaning by text book and that is what I go off.

Obama first called it (correctly) a "military-style assault weapon" before goofing and calling it an assault rifle. There's a world of difference between a military assault rifle, which is already extremely heavily regulated, and a "military-style assault weapon", which is a classification designed to confuse people, like yourself, into thinking that it's significantly more dangerous than a regular semi-automatic rifle or handgun.

The truth is that weapon can fire the most amount of bullets out of any hand guns at the max impact.

Again, these firearms are semi-automatic. All semi-automatics fire at the same rate, which is limited by how fast you can pull the trigger.

At least with a shot gun you have to reload after every shot.

I'm sorry, what? Shotguns have feed tubes capable of holding, commonly, 6, 8, or even more shells.

It's clear that you know almost nothing about firearms, which makes your assertions largely meaningless. You might want to educate yourself before continuing this discussion.

[Wells]

It is an out and out attempt to ban all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns.

This isn't even vaguely true.

[MustangMark83]

What for? All the innocent people killed by them are not enough by now?

Timothy McVeigh killed 160 people without using a gun.

If people want to kill people, they will use any means necessary.

[Wells]

Timothy McVeigh killed 160 people without using a gun.

If people want to kill people, they will use any means necessary.

And now we heavily monitor the substances he used.

[MustangMark83]

This isn't even vaguely true.

Assault weapons ban is just the start of it. They will ban handguns too eventually, democrats are known for being anti-gun , period. Look at Chicago, it's one of the most liberal cities in America, and you aren't allowed to have a gun, even a pistol. Apparantly good honest citizens aren't given the right to defend their property with the liberal agenda.

[Wells]

Assault weapons ban is just the start of it. They will ban handguns too eventually, democrats are known for being anti-gun , period. Look at Chicago, it's one of the most liberal cities in America, and you aren't allowed to have a gun, even a pistol. Apparantly good honest citizens aren't given the right to defend their property with the liberal agenda.

This brought to you by the department of "OH JUST YOU WAIT OBAMA IS COMING FOR YOUR FREEDOM"

[Grizzly Willy]

Assault weapons ban is just the start of it. They will ban handguns too eventually, democrats are known for being anti-gun , period. Look at Chicago, it's one of the most liberal cities in America, and you aren't allowed to have a gun, even a pistol. Apparantly good honest citizens aren't given the right to defend their property with the liberal agenda.

For starters, slippery slope. Second, prove the slope. Third, appeal to emotion. Fourth, define the liberal agenda. Fifth, prove it exists and that it's being carried out.

[SirRobin]

This will be a big one.

When discussing the capability of a rifle, it's appearance has no bearing on that capability. Assigning arbitrary terms based on cosmetics just shows ignorance of the objects in question.

Wait a minute. You really think they are ignorant because they call them assault weapons instead of semiautomatic rifles? Maybe it was just me, but it always seemed kind of obvious that that was how they were distinguishing between semiautomatic rifles like the Armalite knockoffs and other semiautomatics like maybe the Garand. Not because they didn't know better. Cosmetics was the best way they could separate them, at the time, and still get it passed. Of course effective rate of fire would probably be a much better indicator of what firearms should be included in any sort of banning.

The first gun pictured was widely available during the AWB. The AWB actually popularized the guns and if anything made them more popular. They were readily available to anyone that could pass the background checks and had the money.

I don't think anyone has tried to claim yet that the FAWB didn't have flaws. However, despite months of preparation, the only FAWB weapon to be used at Columbine was a TEC-9.

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. Their friend Robyn Anderson bought a rifle and the two shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998. Through Robert Duran, another friend, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from Mark Manes for $500.

Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal. They committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, before they began the massacre.

On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.

Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times.

Actually no, I'd just like to know. Originally I'd heard that they let him in because they recognized him and all he had was handguns hidden away. Afterwards it changed to a rifle also, but never saw anything else about the school security system.

Last I recall it was, "forced his way in." Columbine and Virginia Tech showed that security doesn't work very well against a mass shooter. Now of course guards are not useless. There are a number of reasons to have armed guards in a school. Gang violence as one example. However, because mass shootings tend to have more planning involved and pretty much "everyone" can be the target? Another reason to reduce the mass shooter's access to weaponry with higher effective rates of fire.

The link was actually pretty mixed for information in it, but it was more to the terminology. There is no gun show loophole, so it would help if folks were more accurate in their demands.

Sorry but folks who love the currently liberal definition of the 2nd Amendment getting upset over a gun control loophole not being branded accurately enough for their tastes? Seems rather disingenuous to me.

Actually it vastly misrepresnts the situation.

Bushmaster was being sued, their insurance company told them it'd cost more than their insurance policy covered, so paid them the money and told them to do what they wanted. Bushmaster gave the money to the victims families ($550,000) in an out of court settlement rather than go to court to fight, admitting no wrong doing and paying nothing out of pocket. A lot of folks didn't like that they did it, actually, but their statement was that they'd rather give the money to the families instead of lawyers for HCI.

The gunshop paid out the larger portion of it (though not sure if they actually paid it, 2mil isn't exactly laying around in most gun shops). They lost the case because of (as we've discussed previously) their own ineptitude in securing their inventory. (The gun used was stolen, I forget the details but I think it was an employee.) Their own negligence resulted in a criminal that could otherwise not get a gun, getting a gun, and they were rightfully sued and lost.

Perhaps, though given how frequently settling seems to be more about not having to admit guilt? Instead of risking all the bad press, a possibly very punishing judgement, and setting an even more dangerous precedent? I don't find Bushmaster's claimed reasoning very believable.

And preferable by more people, too. That's why I'm so upset by this talk of a renewed ban. Democratic politicians are spending political capital to try to pass an AWB that, in my mind, would be largely ineffective, while also limiting the rights of a large number of legal and more-or-less responsible gun owners. And they're doing that instead of going after the more legitimate topics. If they put forward a bill that would force background checks for all firearm transactions (dealer or private) as well as make gun locks/safes mandatory for all firearms, and even if they added in a 10-round magazine limit, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat over voting for a useless AWB (though I still think the round-limit should be 20 or 30).

Again, attempting to renew the FAWB is what these politicians not only think is right. It is also probably what they think could actually pass. Additionally, nothing keeps the FAWB from being updated and improved to include what you think would be better as well. If gun owners do feel that that would be better then by all means get a republican to stand up and do so. Has any congressman countered Feinstein's proposal yet with something that may actually be more effective?

Listening to politicians makes me want to wash my brain with clorox afterwards so I really don't know the answer. Has anyone else in congress come forward with proposals that would be more effective?

You keep harping on "legal gun owners" like they're the problem. Once again, I'll state that you're legally allowed to get a gun until and unless you do something that removes that right. To imply that the background check can somehow tell if someone is going to, in the future, snap and go crazy is ridiculous, moving into Minority Report territory. The truth is that 99.99% of gun owners are still legal gun owners because they've done nothing wrong. You keep trying to lump "legal gun owners" together as a whole, then pointing to a very, very small handful of "wackos" as the prime example. This is just stupid. It's a red herring, and you should know better.

It is not just postal workers committing these mass shootings. It is not just used car salesmen committing these shootings. Its not just teenagers committing these shootings. However, by and large, it is legal gun owners either committing these mass shootings. Or letting the shooters use the legal gun owners' weapons to commit these mass shootings. I'm not trying to hide, distract, nor disguise the fact. It is the fact. Now I do agree that it is stupid. If I was a legal gun owner and others were misusing legally acquired firearms to commit mass shootings? I would sure as hell want something done about it.

Why? Because above and beyond the tragic loss of life involved in each one? They are abusing the 2nd Amendment.

Sure, just like ~15% of the prisoners in the US who used a firearm in their crime were first-offenders. Once again, this just shows that you're law-abiding until you're not. And since mass killings (which are all this thread and the media seem to focus on) are, by their very nature, acts of insanity, it's even more likely the case, because it's so hard to predict a crazy act of violence before it happens. A background check can objectively look at someone's criminal history, but it can only tell if someone has been committed as a danger to themselves/others, not if they should be committed. It's false logic and misdirection.

It is not false logic nor misdirection. It further enforces the point that since we can never make mass shootings impossible? We can at least make it as hard as possible for these insane people to kill as many as they do. How? By restricting their access to the kinds of firearms that make it easier for them to kill as many as they do.

Half way there! ;-)

And, sadly, that's emotion-driven politics, rather than reason-driven politics. And if being emotionally driven leads people to a result that's less effective rather than using reason to find a result that's more effective...

Emotion-driven politics is part of how this country came to exist in the first place. So we should never underestimate its power. Which also makes it all the more important to get ahead of the wave with meaningful proposals before it gets away from you. Something LaPierre most definitely did not do by calling for armed guards in all our schools and blaming things like violent video games. Counter Feinstein with someone who will actually counter Feinstein.

You misread it. Twice.

I said that there were more mass killings from non-semi-automatic weapons than from assault weapons. I later amended that statement because I'd earlier counted all shotgun mass killings (19) with revolver mass killings (20) as non-semi-automatic mass killings when the number of shotgun mass killings likely included at least a few semi-automatic shotguns. So I said that the numbers were more or less equal between assault weapon mass killings (35) and revolvers + pump shotgun mass killings (<39).

So you were not counting semiautomatic handguns at all? Interesting, because the chart referenced weapons used, not casualties caused by. By that I mean, we know weapon types used in mass shootings from MJ. Do we know the casualties caused by each weapon type? While revolvers and shotguns may show up in mass shootings. From what I recall, the semiautomatics, whether pistol or rifle, do a lot more shooting in them.

The Catholic Church can regulate Catholic priests, because every Catholic priest belongs to, and acknowledges the power of, the Catholic Church. Gun associations cannot regulate gun ownership. The NRA, the single largest gun owners association, has an estimated 4.3 million members. There are ~270 million guns in the US. Even if you estimate an average of 5 guns per gun owner, that's still more than 50 million gun owners. Meaning that the NRA membership is less than 10% of the whole. And that even assumes that every single member would do what the NRA leadership says, which is laughable.

A Gallup poll last year indicated that nearly 50% of households have at least one gun. The only way to regulate this, en masse, is with federal legislation. And federal legislation will never be able to completely effectively regulate it all, either. So stop trying to say that gun owners should be responsible for policing themselves.

Statistical anomalies are, by definition, the exception, not the rule.

So you're saying its not worth trying? On one hand I'm supposed to stop lumping you all together, as gun owners. On the other I'm supposed to lump you all together? You yourself bring up emotion-driven politics as a bad thing but here imply that that is the only way anything will get done anyway? Which can't be completely effective anyway? Seems awfully defeatist to me.

Additionally, how many of those gun owners own a semiautomatic rifle or assault weapon? How many would get too upset over some kinds of guns getting taken away if they felt their particular variety was safe?

People get socially refused all the time:

Guy comes into a shop, wanting to buy a gun. Makes a joke about killing his wife. Gun seller says "Yeah, I don't feel comfortable selling this gun to you. No sale."

Another guy comes in, wants to get a gun, then has someone else step up to do the paperwork. Gun seller says "No, sorry, this appears to be a straw purchase. No sale."

Yet another guy walks in, says he wants a gun, doesn't seem to care which one or about the cost. Says he wants it today and is told that there's a mandatory wait, after which he repeatedly tries to get behind the gun counter and is issued a trespass warning. Guy comes back a few days later and is caught trying to get behind the gun counter again, and asks if there's anywhere that he can "rent" a gun. Gun seller calls the police and stalls the guy til the police can arrest him for trespassing, and hopefully get some psychiatric help.

These are real incidents, they happen. And none of them relied on the background check to prevent the sale. But very rarely, someone will be able to legally get a gun and then go do something crazy. It doesn't mean the system doesn't work. It just means that no system is perfect.

Just as any system can be improved. Again, is anyone from "your" side of this stepping forward in Washington to counter Feinstein with a counter to the FAWB? If you don't join the conversation with better than "get guards and blame video games," you risk being left out of it completely. Which, again, leaves you with really only yourselves to blame.

We have no idea how well it was secured. Maybe it was sitting, loaded, on a coffee table. Maybe it was in an unlocked safe. Maybe it was locked in the safe, but he had a copy of the key for a potential home defense situation. Maybe it was locked in a safe, the mother didn't trust her son with the key, but kept it in her purse and he stole it. Maybe it was locked in a safe, she didn't trust him with the key, and hid it where she thought he couldn't find it, but he did.

It's all speculation, and we'll probably never know.

Which does nothing to change the fact that it was still okay for her to keep a semiautomatic rifle accessible to a mentally disturbed twenty year old that she was apparently trying to get committed. So still a gun control issue.

If you agree that it's not hard to fool a shrink, then you should agree that it's even harder for some parents (who often times have blinders on where their kids are concerned), let alone a background check, to know in advance that someone is going to commit this kind of crime and should therefore be refused access to a firearm.

Again reinforcing the need to restrict access to the kinds of firearms that make it easier for mass shooters to kill more people.

God, you never seem to get tired of this ridiculous assertion.

A few crazy people are the problem. Millions of legal gun owners are not the problem.

Once again, let me ask you:
Should you limit the rights of all white people for the actions of the KKK?
Should you limit the rights of all African-American and Latino people for the actions of inner-city gang violence?
Should you limit the rights of all Catholics for the actions of a few, perverted priests?

No, you blame the few responsible, not the group as a whole. By repeatedly saying that legal gun owners are the problem, it's like you're racially profiling, but analogous to gun owners.

And despite the more media-focused mass killings, the vast majority of firearm violence is done by illegal gun owners. There are, on average, about 1000 gang-related shooting homicides in a year.

Just as, again, its not ridiculous if its right. As far as the rest? First of all its not "limiting rights" since, as shown before. The 2nd Amendment does not need to be changed or ignored, simply better understood. If you want to compare how to handle the actions of a few compared to the many they are a part of? It would probably be more accurate to reference equal rights kinds of legislation. Not everyone necessarily will discriminate, but we still say no one can. Just as not many kill. Yet we still say its a no no. We are not limiting everyone else's rights. We are saying what is acceptable and what isn't.

While other gun crimes may be more common. Again, the distinctive nature of the mass shooting makes them stand out. Not only due to how much more costly each can be, but also due to those committing them, or who they get there weaponry from, tends to be.

No, they don't. Mass killings, despite their individually high body counts, are still a tiny fraction of gun violence. Gun control shouldn't be based on only 1% of gun violence, let alone applied to the 99.99% of non-violent gun owners. Ignoring things like gang violence, which alone is responsible for more than 10% of firearm homicides, when talking about gun control is being nonsensically myopic.

No its not. It is witnessing something that, we can all see, can be mitigated. There is little ignoring going on when it comes to other gun crimes. Gang units, gun buybacks, legal penalties, etc, etc, etc... How often has a politician won an election by promising to get tough on crime or by being tough on crime. We do a lot about other gun crimes. How much do we do about mass shootings?

Unfortunately, the three guns purchased at the gun show would probably still have been purchased, even if the background checks had been done, since they were purchased by a friend who was 18 and with no record. It would still have been an illegal transaction, assuming the girl bought them specifically for the two boys, since that would constitute a straw purchase, but those aren't going to be caught by a background check.

The other gun, the 9mm handgun, was purchased illegally by the two boys from a third party.

The TEC-9 was actually bought at the gun show too. They bought it from someone, who bought it at the gun show.

Wow... Feel like I just finished a boxing match. 8-)

[Cthulhu 2020]

This isn't even vaguely true.

Let's be honest, The Riddler has proven himself to prescribe to the train of thought that Obama is a muslim terrorist and all democrats want to turn the grand old US of A into a hybrid of pre revolution England and communist Russia, so his posts can be safely discarded as they don't really add anything meaningful to the discussion.

[SirRobin]

Let's be honest, The Riddler has proven himself to prescribe to the train of thought that Obama is a muslim terrorist and all democrats want to turn the grand old US of A into a hybrid of pre revolution England and communist Russia, so his posts can be safely discarded as they don't really add anything meaningful to the discussion.

In my opinion he does add something meaningful to the conversation. His claims can be examined just like everyone else's. How easy it may, or may not, end up being to find his assertions lacking is still useful because it reveals more of the opinions surrounding the gun control debate. Exploring divergent viewpoints helps us separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

[Cthulhu 2020]

In my opinion he does add something meaningful to the conversation. His claims can be examined just like everyone else's. How easy it may, or may not, end up being to find his assertions lacking is still useful because it reveals more of the opinions surrounding the gun control debate. Exploring divergent viewpoints helps us separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

You got me there, I do suppose I'll take a closer look at his... "unique" viewpoint.

[Obsession]

But, let me repost the images again, and you can tell me which is more dangerous, because you didn't answer that I saw.
http://dpmsinc.com/assets/images/firearms/RFA2-B16.jpg
http://dpmsinc.com/assets/images/firearms/RFLP-WCP.jpg
Enlighten me with your knowledge of the assault weapon category and explain why one is unfit for the public, but the other is perfectly acceptable.

I see what you did there! They are the same gun!

[Deleted]

Enlighten me with your knowledge of the assault weapon category and explain why one is unfit for the public, but the other is perfectly acceptable.

The politicians wanted a assault weapon ban, but the gun lobby and gun industry had enough influence to make the law toothless, so you can still sell a "assault rifle" legally, as long you do some modification like removing the full automatic fire function. (and that probably helps the rampage gunner, now he can aim better instead of hitting 1-2 persons, and the rest of the bullet hit the wall/roof)

[ugotownd]

I said this after watching CNN and the NRA President. Even other posters agree that a loop hole exists. If you go to a gun show you can buy one without being a dealer if what I mean to say. You can just be a person selling a gun and no paperwork. No Background check. You don't even need to check the ID. A person can sell another a gun without any paper record at gun shows.

That's the truth. AR-15 have a large mmo clip larger then 10 bullets and most favored gun to use in mass killings. It to me is a Military assault weapon with no place in a civil society. Anyone whose shooting anyone with this weapon will kill them and likely innocent bystanders just because how many bullets this gun unloads at once.

Perfect example of why you should be banned from these convo's. Only gun newbs call it a clip its a magazine. It is actually used the least in mass killings. It also unloads the same amount as any other weapon one round per trigger pull unless its fully auto which is super rare to see.

[PizzaSHARK]

Perfect example of why you should be banned from these convo's. Only gun newbs call it a clip its a magazine. It is actually used the least in mass killings. It also unloads the same amount as any other weapon one round per trigger pull unless its fully auto which is super rare to see.

Using fully automatic fire would be pointless, anyway; you'd hit more walls and desks and chairs than you would people. Guns don't behave in real life like they do in Call of Duty.